Appeal No. 2003-1162 Page 4
Application No. 09/468,292
61. The method of claim 1, wherein the ionic liquid is of the formula:
wherein R1 is alkyl and Y- consists essentially of a halide, sulfate, nitrate, acetate, nitrite,
tetrafluoroborate, tetrachloroborate, hexafluorophosphate, [SbF6]-, chloroaluminate,
bromoaluminate, chlorocuprate, heteropolyanion, trifluoromethanesulfonate, or mixture thereof.
The Examiner maintains rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶¶ 1 and 2, as well as under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art
references:
Frigo et al. (Frigo)5,232,869Aug. 3, 1993
Hartmann et al. (Hartmann) 6,019,840 Feb. 1, 2000
(filed Jun. 27, 1997)
Biefeld et al. (Biefeld) 6,071,109 Jun. 6, 2000
(filed Feb. 24, 1999)
Michael Freemantle, Designer Solvents, C&EN, Mar. 30, 1998, at 32-37 (Freemantle).
The Examiner also relies upon Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art, specification, p. 3, ll. 7-10
(AAPA).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007